RE: [office] Towards a more modular ODF

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 07/24/2011 
11:05:25 AM:

> 
> There's a lot to swallow in the fact that ODF 1.2 is not on the same
> structure as ODF 1.1. 
> 
> I would not want to see that done again on the ODF 1.x line, with 
> the prospective possibility of introducing something in a supplement
> (e.g., whole-package encryption comes to mind). 
> 
> Maybe for ODF 2.0, but modularizing the 1.3 effort would put us 
> completely out of sync with the road map.
> 
> Also, I thought part of the timed-release model was that the 
> periodic (semi-annual?) Committee Specification Drafts would provide
> time for provisional and confirming implementation work.  To also 

But this doesn't work for implementations, like Microsoft Office, that 
wait for the greater certainty of an approved standard before they support 
an ODF revision.  A modular approach would allow them this certainty much 
sooner than waiting for a monolithic standard to complete.


> restructure the specification would put a serious spanner into that 
> ambition, it seems to me. 
> 
> We also have not figured out how we would manage the 
> interdependencies among modules. We are mostly OK with Part 3 
> (although there are some strange dependencies, such as the one about
> the manifest:version on "/" being mandatory according to Part 1).  I
> think we are just learning with regard to OpenFormula, and some 
> other provisions are clearly cross-cutting and aspected, such as 
> change tracking.  Likewise accessibility, I imagine.
> 

Yes, this would be work and obviously nothing happens without volunteers 
to do the work.  But if, hypothetically, such resources were available, 
and we could do this without blowing up the ODF 1.3 schedule, then would 
it be a good idea?


>  - Dennis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 12:09
> To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [office] Towards a more modular ODF
> 
> "Andreas J. Guelzow" <andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca> wrote on 
07/23/2011 
> 02:38:55 PM:
> 
> > From: "Andreas J. Guelzow" <andreas.guelzow@concordia.ab.ca>
> > To: <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Date: 07/23/2011 02:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: [office] Towards a more modular ODF
> > 
> > On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 11:39 -0600, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > 
> > > One idea that I was brought up at the Plugfest was the idea of 
making 
> ODF 
> > > more modular,  meaning defining formal modules at the schema and 
> > > specification level, and to standardize these modules independently, 

> at 
> > > whatever pace they naturally evolve.  We're partially down that road 

> > > already with the three "parts" of ODF 1.2.  But since these are part 

> of 
> > > the same OASIS standard, we cannot evolve them at different paces. 
The 
> 
> > > rigidity of this monolithic approach impacts our work in OASIS and 
in 
> ISO.
> > > 
> > (...)
> > > 
> > > I'd be interested in the TC's thoughts on this.  Is this worth 
aiming 
> for? 
> > >  Is it doable?  Or is it "boiling the ocean"? 
> > 
> > I believe that the primary effect of restructuring the ODF standard 
once
> > again would primarily result in a delay of ODF 1.3, 1.4 etc without 
any
> > real gain. I see no reason why we can't work inside more or less 
defined
> > modules but retaining a fixed release schedule and a monolithic
> > standard.
> >
> 
> I should mention also a related issue.  This is the problem of our 
> standards cycle versus product cycles.  As you know, many open source 
> projects have a "release early/release often" philosophy.  For example, 
> LibreOffice seems to be dropping a release every month.  Other products 
do 
> a release every few months.  Even commercial products have a cadence, 
> e.g., Microsoft Office every 3 years or so.  If the standards cycle is 
> much longer than a product's release cycle then we have the issue of 
> features from specification drafts making it into released products.  We 

> know that this creates a window of confusion where documents with 
> non-standardized features are being exchanged.  At the same time some 
open 
> source products are implementing draft features, other vendors, like 
> Microsoft, prefer to wait for the more stable published standards. There 

> are several ways of addressing this constellation of issues, but one way 

> to mitigate the effect is to reduce the time between a feature being 
> specified and the time when the standard is published.  A more modular 
> approach could do that. 
> 
> 
> > As modules (eg. change tracking,...) reach a release ready state they
> > can be inserted/incorporated into the monolithic standard and released
> > as part of the next ODF version according to schedule. If a module 
isn't
> > ready it would just not be incorporated for a release. 
> > 
> 
> That would work, but would what does it mean for implementors.  If some 
> implement it, according to the draft specification, while others wait 
for 
> final approval and publication, then that introduces other issues.
> 
> 
> -Rob
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>